DOCSLIB.ORG

Haynes V. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 19-Cv-12427

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Haynes V. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 19-Cv-12427 Case 2:19-cv-12427-TGB-APP ECF No. 1 filed 08/16/19 PageID.1 Page 1 of 225 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN JAMAR HAYNES, SCOTT Case No. 2:19-cv-12427 WHITEHILL, MATTHEW BROWNLEE, BENJAMIN BISCHOFF, STEPHEN LESZCZYNSKI, CASSANDRA JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MORRISON, ROBERT RANEY, and DAVID POLLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 010825-11/1171942 V1 Case 2:19-cv-12427-TGB-APP ECF No. 1 filed 08/16/19 PageID.2 Page 2 of 225 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 JURISDICTION ........................................................................................... 7 VENUE ......................................................................................................... 9 PARTIES ...................................................................................................... 9 Plaintiffs ............................................................................................. 9 1. Jamar Haynes – Georgia .......................................................... 9 2. Cassandra Morrison – Illinois ................................................ 11 3. Benjamin Bischoff – Louisiana ............................................. 13 4. Scott Whitehill – Nebraska .................................................... 14 5. David Polley – Ohio ............................................................... 16 6. Matthew Brownlee – South Carolina ..................................... 18 7. Robert Raney – South Dakota................................................ 19 8. Stephen Leszczynski – Wisconsin ......................................... 21 Defendant ......................................................................................... 23 1. Ford Motor Company ............................................................ 23 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ..................................................................... 23 Coastdown testing ............................................................................ 23 The coastdown results are used to create fuel economy information posted on vehicles’ windows and used in advertising. ....................................................................................... 26 Ford admits improper coastdown testing. ........................................ 31 1. 2019 Ranger ........................................................................... 31 CAFE standards provide manufacturers with credits for low emissions. ......................................................................................... 35 010825-11/1171942 V1 - i - Case 2:19-cv-12427-TGB-APP ECF No. 1 filed 08/16/19 PageID.3 Page 3 of 225 Criminal investigation ...................................................................... 41 Mechanism of coastdown cheating .................................................. 42 F-150 test results .............................................................................. 46 Ford’s History of Cheating ............................................................... 55 Ford advertising for the Ranger emphasizes fuel economy. ............ 57 Ford promotes the F-150 as best in class for fuel economy or publishes MPG estimates to beat its competition. ........................... 58 Economic harm ................................................................................. 67 TOLLING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ................................ 67 Discovery rule tolling ....................................................................... 67 Fraudulent concealment tolling ........................................................ 68 Estoppel ............................................................................................ 69 CLASS ALLEGATIONS ........................................................................... 69 COUNT 1 VIOLATION OF THE GEORGIA FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT (GA. CODE ANN. § 10-1-390 ET SEQ.) ................... 73 COUNT 2 VIOLATION OF THE GEORGIA UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (GA. CODE ANN § 10-1-370 ET SEQ.) ..................................................................................................... 74 COUNT 3 BREACH OF CONTRACT (BASED ON GEORGIA LAW) ........... 75 COUNT 4 FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (BASED ON GEORGIA LAW) .......................................................................................................... 77 COUNT 5 VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT (815 ILCS 505/1, ET SEQ. AND 720 ILCS 295/1A) .................................................. 82 COUNT 6 BREACH OF CONTRACT (BASED ON ILLINOIS LAW) ............ 86 COUNT 7 FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (BASED ON ILLINOIS LAW) .......................................................................................................... 88 010825-11/1171942 V1 - ii - Case 2:19-cv-12427-TGB-APP ECF No. 1 filed 08/16/19 PageID.4 Page 4 of 225 COUNT 8 VIOLATION OF THE LOUISIANA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (LA. REV. STAT. § 51:1401 ET SEQ.) .............................................................. 93 COUNT 9 BREACH OF CONTRACT (BASED ON LOUISIANA LAW) .......................................................................................................... 95 COUNT 10 FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (BASED ON LOUISIANA LAW) ................................................................................... 97 COUNT 11 VIOLATION OF THE NEBRASKA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (NEB. REV. STAT. § 59-1601 ET SEQ.) ............. 102 COUNT 12 BREACH OF CONTRACT (BASED ON NEBRASKA LAW) ........................................................................................................ 103 COUNT 13 FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (BASED ON NEBRASKA LAW) ................................................................................. 105 COUNT 14 VIOLATION OF THE OHIO CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES ACT (OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 1345.01 ET SEQ.) ................................................................................................... 105 COUNT 15 BREACH OF CONTRACT (BASED ON OHIO LAW) ............... 108 COUNT 16 FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (BASED ON OHIO LAW) ........................................................................................................ 110 COUNT 17 VIOLATION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT (S.C. CODE ANN. § 39-5-10 ET SEQ.) ................................................................................................... 115 COUNT 18 BREACH OF CONTRACT (BASED ON SOUTH CAROLINA LAW) .................................................................................. 116 COUNT 19 FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (BASED ON SOUTH CAROLINA LAW) .................................................................................. 117 COUNT 20 VIOLATION OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 37-24-6) ........................................................ 123 COUNT 21 BREACH OF CONTRACT (BASED ON SOUTH DAKOTA LAW) ...................................................................................... 123 010825-11/1171942 V1 - iii - Case 2:19-cv-12427-TGB-APP ECF No. 1 filed 08/16/19 PageID.5 Page 5 of 225 COUNT 22 FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (BASED ON SOUTH DAKOTA LAW) ...................................................................................... 125 COUNT 23 VIOLATION OF THE WISCONSIN DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (WIS. STAT. § 110.18) ............................................. 130 COUNT 24 BREACH OF CONTRACT (BASED ON WISCONSIN LAW) ........................................................................................................ 131 COUNT 25 FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (BASED ON WISCONSIN LAW) ................................................................................. 133 Claims brought on behalf of the other state classes ....................... 138 COUNT 26 VIOLATION OF THE ALABAMA DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (ALA. CODE § 8-19-1 ET SEQ.) ............................. 138 COUNT 27 VIOLATION OF THE ALASKA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (ALASKA STAT. ANN. § 45.50.471 ET SEQ.) ........................................................ 140 COUNT 28 VIOLATION OF THE ARIZONA CONSUMER FRAUD ACT (ARIZONA REV. STAT. § 44-1521 ET SEQ.) .............................. 141 COUNT 29 VIOLATION OF THE ARKANSAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (ARK. CODE ANN. § 4-88-101 ET SEQ.) .............. 143 COUNT 30 VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.) ................................................................................................... 144 COUNT 31 VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA FALSE ADVERTISING LAW (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17500 ET SEQ.) ................................................................................................... 148 COUNT 32 VIOLATION OF THE COLORADO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (COLO. REV. STAT. § 6-1-101 ET SEQ.) ........... 152 COUNT 33 VIOLATION OF THE CONNECTICUT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT (CONN. GEN. STAT. § 42-110A ET SEQ.) ............ 153 COUNT 34 VIOLATION OF THE DELAWARE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT (DEL. CODE TIT. 6, § 2513 ET SEQ.)........................................... 154 010825-11/1171942 V1 - iv - Case 2:19-cv-12427-TGB-APP ECF No. 1 filed 08/16/19 PageID.6 Page 6 of 225 COUNT 35 VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (FLA. STAT. § 501.201 ET SEQ.) ..................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Once and Future Nudges
    Missouri Law Review Volume 82 Issue 3 Summer 2017 - Symposium Article 10 Summer 2017 Once and Future Nudges Arden Rowell Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Arden Rowell, Once and Future Nudges, 82 MO. L. REV. (2017) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol82/iss3/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rowell: Once and Future Nudges Once and Future Nudges Arden Rowell* ABSTRACT The nudge – a form of behaviorally-informed regulation that at- tempts to account for people’s scarce cognitive resources – has been explosively successful at colonizing the regulatory state. This Essay argues that the remarkable success of nudges as a species creates new challenges and opportunities for individual nudges that did not exist ten years ago, when nudges were new. These changes follow from the new fact that nudges must now interact with other nudges. This creates op- portunities for nudge versus nudge battles, where nudges compete with other nudges for the scarce resource of public cognition; and for nudge & nudge symbiosis, where nudges work complementarily with other nudges to achieve greater good with fewer resources. Because of the potential for positive and negative interactions with other nudges, mod- ern nudges should be expected to operate differently from ancestral nudges in important ways, and future nudges should be expected to op- erate more differently still.
    [Show full text]
  • Battery + Small Inline Electric Motor
    Midsize BEVs (& PHEVs) in 2017 & 2018 BEVs > 200-miles (PHEVs > 50-miles-EV) Game Changers! L. David Roper [email protected] Terminology ICE = Internal Combustion Engine car (gasoline or diesel). mHEV = mild Hybrid car: large ICE + very small battery + small inline electric motor. HEV = hybrid car: medium ICE + small battery + 1 or 2 electric motors. PHEV = Plug-in Hybrid car: small ICE + larger battery + 1 or 2 electric motors + plug. BEV = Battery Electric car: large battery + 1 or 2 powerful electric motors + plug. EV = Electric Vehicle: PHEV or BEV. Electrified Vehicle: all of the above except ICE. Energy: kilowatt-hours (kWh), Power = Energy/time = kilowatts (kW) tinyurl.com/BEVsPHEVs 1 My BEV Experience and Planned BEV Future 1. Owned a 2007 ZAP Xero PK for 3 years (2007-2010) (30-miles range). 2. Leased a 2012 Nissan LEAF for 3 years (2012-2015) (73-miles range). 3. Leased a 2015 Nissan LEAF for 2 years (2015-2017) (84-miles range). 4. Bought a 2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV (CBEV) (238-miles range). 5. Future Plans: 6. Lease/buy a 2018 Tesla Model-3 for 3 years (2018-2022)(310-miles). 1. To use the many Tesla Superchargers for long-distance travel. 2. Because it is so beautiful! 3. Because it is a Tesla. 7. Lease/buy a 2022 ? for 3 years (2022-2025)(>450-miles) We own 2016 Toyota RAV4 AWD Hybrid for long-distance trips (33 mpg). 2 • 2007 Zap Xero PK 3-wheel pickup • 8-kWh lead-acid gel batteries • 5-kW (7 hp) DC motor • 30-miles range, 40 mph top speed • 0-30 mph in ~15 seconds • 100-watts solar panel • Dump bed • Drove it >3000 miles.
    [Show full text]
  • Margaret Taylor, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
    2A: Tranportation Moderator: Margaret Taylor, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab John Anderson, Center for Sustainable Energy Identifying areas with high proclivity to adopt electric vehicles Researchers focused on clean transportation have produced a large body of knowledge about factors that predict the likelihood of electric vehicle (EV) adoption. The literature routinely informs policy aimed at reducing barriers to EV adoption, as well as for targeting and tailoring outreach and education aimed at “adding fuel to the fire,” or increasing adoption among consumers already predisposed to adopting electric vehicles. Consumer attributes thought to be related to higher likelihood of adoption include single-family home ownership, multiple vehicles in a household, higher income levels, high levels of EV adoption among neighbors, and prior adoption of clean technologies like solar. The authors build on these identified attributes, and use data from a variety of sources — including California’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) Consumer Survey — to identify census tracts with high proclivity for electric vehicle adoption. These results will inform an interactive tool for use by EV stakeholders. Results will be useful for identifying areas with high potential for EV adoption, especially in areas where adoption levels are presently low. These results will also provide CVRP outreach implementation teams with a tool for identifying areas where their outreach efforts might have high impacts on increasing adoption. Alec Beall, The University of British Columbia A carbon price by another name may seem sweeter: Consumers prefer upstream offsets to equivalent downstream taxes Consumers are influenced not only by prices, but also by how those prices are labelled.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of the Us Automotive Industry
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Texas A&M Repository THE ECONOMICS OF THE U.S. AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY: STUDIES ON REGULATION AND COMPETITION A Dissertation by EPHRAIM KARSAGI Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Chair of Committee, Steven Puller Committee Members, Yonghong An Fernando Luco Venkatesh Shankar Head of Department, Timothy Gronberg August 2018 Major Subject: Economics Copyright 2018 Ephraim Karsagi ABSTRACT This dissertation is about the U.S. automobile industry. In the first part, I study an environmen- tal policy that ascribes a fee or a rebate to each new vehicle in the marketplace, depending on the vehicle’s fuel economy rating; thus, it is called a ’feebate’. Feebates can be designed to reach op- timal outcomes given assumptions on people’s preferences and welfare from buying cars. Since a feebate is a function from fuel economy ratings to cash, I study how feebate functional form affects the efficacy of the policy as well as some distributional outcomes. I conclude that a feebate policy, represented by a logistic functional form in which larger portions of consumers face high marginal incentives to increase fuel economy, brings about improved outcomes over other functional forms. The second part of this dissertation explores the nature of local competition and tests the exis- tence of local market power held by car dealerships. In the empirical model, I exploit variation in local competition that is caused by factors external to the dynamics of local demand and supply.
    [Show full text]
  • State of California California Environmental Protection Agency
    State of California California Environmental Protection Agency AIR RESOURCES BOARD Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE EMISSION CONTROL AND SMOG INDEX LABELS REGULATION Public Hearing Date: June 21, 2007 Agenda Item No.: 07-7-5 I. GENERAL On October 6, 2005, Assembly Bill 1229 was signed into law (Chapter 575, now Health & Safety Code § 43200.1), which directs the Air Resources Board to review and revise the existing Smog Index Label and to develop a Global Warming Index. A summary of the requirements follows. • No later than July 1, 2007, revise regulations relating to the smog index decal, to rename the existing decal and to provide specified smog forming, and global warming emissions information. • Label is required to be effective for model year 2009 and subsequent model year new motor vehicles. • Label is required for all passenger cars and light-duty trucks with a gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds and medium-duty passenger vehicles less than 10,000 pounds. • Global warming index shall include emissions from vehicle operation and upstream emissions. • Label shall include projected average vehicle emissions and lowest emission vehicle reference points. • Label shall use at least one color ink in addition to black. • Staff shall hold at least one public workshop. • Staff shall seek input from automotive consumers, graphic design professionals, and other relevant labeling formats. 1. Proposed Regulatory Amendments The rulemaking was initiated by the May 4, 2007 publication of a notice for a June 21-22, 2007, Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) public hearing to consider the proposed amendments.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Document
    LOC: ND 031 Dealer Stock Status: INVENTORY VIN: WVWPR7AU9KW908641 MODEL: BE23D1-2019 e-Golf SEL Premium Pure White Exterior Titan Black Leatherette Interior 2019064-ORIGINAL Fuel Economy and Environment Electric Vehicle 2019 e-Golf SEL Premium Pure White Exterior Fuel Economy Compact Cars range from 14 to You Titan Black Leatherette Interior 107 MPG. The best vehicle rates save MPGe 136 MPGe. STANDARD FEATURES (unless replaced by packages or options) WARRANTY INFORMATION - Volkswagen New Vehicle Limited Warranty: PERFORMANCE 3 years/36,000 miles (whichever occurs first)* - 100 kW electric motor w/ 35.8 kW/hour Lithium-Ion battery pack combined city/hwy city126 highway111 kW-hrs28 per $4,250 - Powertrain Limited Warranty: 5 years/60,000 miles (whichever occurs first)* in fuel costs - Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) - no tailpipe emissions 100 miles - High-Voltage System Limited Warranty: - Front-wheel drive Driving Range over 5 years 5 years/60,000 miles (whichever occurs first)* except high-voltage battery; When fully charged, vehicle can travel about... - Regenerative braking system High-voltage battery: 8 years/100,000 miles (whichever occurs first)* 0 25 50 75 100 compared to the - XDS® Electronic Differential Lock 119 - Limited Warranty against Corrosion Perforation: miles average new vehicle. - Four-wheel independent suspension Charge Time: 5.3 hours (240V) 12 years/120,000 miles (whichever occurs first)* 125 - Electro-mechanical power steering w/ variable assistance *Please ask your dealer for a copy of the Volkswagen warranty booklet for details. Fuel Economy & Greenhouse Gas Rating (tailpipe only) Smog Rating (tailpipe only) SAFETY FEATURES Annual fuel - 3-point safety belts, all seating positions 24-HOUR ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE: cost - 3 years/36,000 miles (whichever occurs first).
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
    Case 2:15-cv-07085-JLL-JAD Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 1 of 55 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY WILLIAM ARMSTRONG and PATRICK BENAD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.; VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., VOLKSWAGEN AG; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case 2:15-cv-07085-JLL-JAD Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 2 of 55 PageID: 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................1 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..........................................................................................4 III. PARTIES .............................................................................................................................5 A. Plaintiffs ...............................................................................................................................5 B. Defendants ...........................................................................................................................5 IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ..............................................................................................7 A. The EPA and CARB Implementation of Higher Emissions Standards in 2009 ..................7 B. Defendants’ Development of the TDI Clean Diesel Technology ........................................9 C. Defendants’ Marketing of the TDI Clean Diesel Technology ...........................................13
    [Show full text]
  • A Review and Comparative Analysis of Fiscal Policies Associated with New Passenger
    ICCT A Review and Comparative Analysis of Fiscal Policies Associated with New Passenger Vehicle CO2 Emissions Hui He, Anup Bandivadekar Review and Comparative Analysis of Fiscal Policies The International Council on Clean Transportation 1225 I Street NW | Suite 900 | Washington DC 20005 One Post Street | Suite 2700 | San Francisco CA 94104 48 Rue de Stassart | bte 6 | 1050 Brussels www.theicct.org The International Council on Clean Transportation is an independent nonprofit organization that works directly with regulatory agencies and policy makers in the world’s ten largest vehicle markets to control greenhouse gas emissions and conventional pollution in the transportation sector. © 2011, International Council on Clean Transportation 1225 I Street NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20005 www.theicct.org • [email protected] A Review and Comparative Analysis of Fiscal Policies Associated with New Passenger Vehicle CO2 Emissions Hui He Policy Analyst, International Council on Clean Transportation Anup Bandivadekar Passenger Vehicle Program Lead, International Council on Clean Transportation February 2011 Acknowledgments The authors thank ICCT participants who have generously contributed their time and insight in reviewing and commenting on the draft version of this report: Axel Friedrich (Germany), Huiming Gong (China), Anumita Roychowdhury (India), Michael Walsh (USA). The following individuals have also reviewed previous drafts of this report: Deborah Gordon, David Greene, Dan Meszler, Chuck Shulock, Ye Wu. We would also like to thank our colleagues Drew Kodjak, John German, Fanta Kamakate, Dan Rutherford, Peter Mock, Ed Pike, and Joe Schultz for their guidance and constructive comments. We are also grateful to Kamyla Borges (Brazil), and Youngil Jeong (South Korea) for their help in gathering information for this report.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Document
    LOC: N1 644 Dealer Stock Status: SOLD VIN: WVGTMPE2XMP023816 MODEL: E214MN-2021 ID.4 Pro S (Statement) Mythos Black Metallic exterior Galaxy Black Leatherette interior 2021099-ORIGINAL Fuel Economy and Environment Electric Vehicle 2021 ID.4 Pro S (Statement) Mythos Black Metallic exterior Single-speed Automatic Transmission Volkswagen Fuel Economy Small SUVs range from 16 to 125 MPG. The You Galaxy Black Leatherette interior MPGe best vehicle rates 142 MPGe. save STANDARD FEATURES (unless replaced by packages or options) WARRANTY INFORMATION - New Vehicle Limited Warranty: 4 years/50,000 miles (whichever occurs first)* PERFORMANCE - High-Voltage System Limited Warranty: - Single electric motor; 82 kWh (gross) Lithium-ion battery pack combined city/hwy city104 highway89 kW-hrs35 per $4,000 4 years/50,000 miles (whichever occurs first)* except high-voltage battery; in fuel costs - Rear-wheel drive 100 miles High-voltage battery: 8 years/100,000 miles (whichever occurs first)* Driving Range - Four-wheel independent suspension - Limited Warranty against Corrosion Perforation: When fully charged, vehicle can travel about... over 5 years 7 years/100,000 miles (whichever occurs first)* 0 50 100 150 200 compared to the EXTERIOR *See owner's literature or dealer for important details and limitations. 97 - 19" alloy wheels w/ all-season tires miles Charge Time: 7.5 hours (240V) average new vehicle. 250 - Rain-sensing front wipers w/ heated washer nozzles SCHEDULED CAREFREE MAINTENANCE® - Black roof rails Fuel Economy & Greenhouse Gas Rating (tailpipe only) Smog Rating (tailpipe only) - 2 years/20,000 miles (whichever occurs first)* *See owner's literature or dealer for important details and limitations.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Document
    LOC: NH 031 Dealer Stock Status: INVENTORY VIN: WVWPR7AU8KW918304 MODEL: BE23D1-2019 e-Golf SEL Premium Pure White Exterior Titan Black Leatherette Interior 2019345-ORIGINAL Fuel Economy and Environment Electric Vehicle 2019 e-Golf SEL Premium Pure White Exterior Automatic Single Gear Fuel Economy Compact Cars range from 14 to You Titan Black Leatherette Interior 119 MPG. The best vehicle rates save MPGe 136 MPGe. STANDARD FEATURES (unless replaced by packages or options) WARRANTY INFORMATION - Volkswagen New Vehicle Limited Warranty: PERFORMANCE 3 years/36,000 miles (whichever occurs first)* - 100 kW electric motor w/ 35.8 kW/hour Lithium-Ion battery pack combined city/hwy city126 highway111 kW-hrs28 per $4,250 - Powertrain Limited Warranty: 5 years/60,000 miles (whichever occurs first)* in fuel costs - Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) - no tailpipe emissions 100 miles - High-Voltage System Limited Warranty: - Front-wheel drive Driving Range over 5 years 5 years/60,000 miles (whichever occurs first)* except high-voltage battery; When fully charged, vehicle can travel about... - Regenerative braking system High-voltage battery: 8 years/100,000 miles (whichever occurs first)* 0 25 50 75 100 compared to the - XDS® Electronic Differential Lock 119 - Limited Warranty against Corrosion Perforation: miles average new vehicle. - Four-wheel independent suspension Charge Time: 5.3 hours (240V) 12 years/120,000 miles (whichever occurs first)* 125 - Electro-mechanical power steering w/ variable assistance *Please ask your dealer for a copy of the Volkswagen warranty booklet for details. Fuel Economy & Greenhouse Gas Rating (tailpipe only) Smog Rating (tailpipe only) SAFETY FEATURES Annual fuel - 3-point safety belts, all seating positions 24-HOUR ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE: cost - 3 years/36,000 miles (whichever occurs first).
    [Show full text]
  • The EPA's Flawed 2013 Window Sticker
    The EPA’s Flawed 2013 Window Sticker Supporting Vehicle Electrification by Misrepresenting MPG Equivalency By Pat Murphy, Plan Curtail Accurate Simple Window Sticker Inaccurate Complicated Window Sticker February 2012 Contents Introduction 1 Window Sticker History – 1977 to 2010 3 The 2011 (2013) Window Sticker 5 Comparing Historical Sticker Changes from 1977 to 2011 (2013) 8 New Additions to the Window 2011 (2013) Window Sticker 9 The 2011 (2013) Window Sticker Format 10 Confusing Sticker Formatting – Fuel Costs 11 Government Priorities as Measured by Format Differences 14 Two Failures of the 2011 (2013) Sticker 15 Understanding Source Energy versus Site Energy 16 Suggested Content for a New Sticker 17 Conclusion 19 i Introduction Automobile “window stickers” provide relevant information about new automobiles (Figure 1). They are affixed to every new car in every car showroom in the U.S. The window sticker is specified and designed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with support from the Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Transportation (DOT); the logos of all three organizations are on the most recent sticker. The EPA and related agencies set the standards for car fuel economy testing but do not do the actual testing of cars; this is done by the car manufacturers. Automakers are required to test one representative vehicle – typically a preproduction prototype – for each combination of loaded vehicle weight class, transmission class, and basic engine. EPA reviews the results and verifies a small number of the cars tested using their own tests at the National Vehicles and Fuel Emissions Laboratory. Figure 1: EPA and DOE Heads Reviewing a New Window Sticker The information on the window sticker reflects government policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Rushing from Gas Pumps to Charging Stations? Consider the Consumer by Allan Vivian
    Rushing From Gas Pumps to Charging Stations? Consider the Consumer By Allan Vivian In 2009 the U.S. Congress passed legislation that mandates a corporate average fuel economy standard of 35.5 miles per gallon by the 2016 model year. By September 2011, the Obama administration plans to establish new standards that will apply to the 2017 through 2025 model years. These standards will likely increase the pressure on manufacturers to design, build, and market more fuel-efficient vehicles during the remainder of this decade and beyond. Among automobile manufacturers, the transition to more fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles has Many more alternative powertrain vehicles are now in the been going on for quite some time, but this phenomenon pipeline, including new body-style variations of the leading is accelerating in 2011. January 2011 marks the first time hybrid vehicle, the Toyota Prius. Hybrid vehicles differ that an executive from a major automotive manufacturer from plug-in hybrid, because they retain a gasoline engine has publicly thrown down the gauntlet to his peers and that powers the vehicle alongside a battery. The gasoline declared, “Let’s remember, the destination for all of us is engine kicks in only when needed, and this results in much zero emissions.” By implication, he may also be saying, the higher fuel economy than a conventional gasoline engine. ultimate goal is a world where gas pumps will be replaced Toyota plans to bring 12 new or redesigned alternative-fuel by charging stations. vehicles to market by the end of 2012. No one expects this transformation to occur any time The U.S.
    [Show full text]